tv [untitled] February 17, 2012 5:18am-5:48am PST
some more dramatic thing? but at least one acknowledges it has to be done and in some amount of time. maybe the plan is that it is going to take three years to get this done, or five years for me to afford it or whatever. it sounds like there are already some loopholes there. it does sound like there should be a tacet understanding that there is an obligation and a liability. it seems like we all fly under the radar, don't ask, don't tell. and even worse so in lease extensions. lease extensions, there is no scrutiny of lease extensions in my experience. it is like are you willing to rent it to me again, and what are you going to nick me for on rent increases? that is all we talk about. i support it in spirit.
i understand that commissioner o'brien has some issues about how you define what is going to happen, but i think you can leave it open and say look, a plan has to be in place. >> i would move to approve this. with the addition of including a plan, an action plan. it is to follow the legislation, but add a plan as well, because we do have to deal with the timing of the work, the disruption of the business and potential disruption as well. >> the lease renewal might come up in your busiest season, before or after. have a plan, and include all buildings.
to the point notification is the biggest issue, and we really should move forward now. again, we owe it to the disability community, the greater community. >> the obvious work around would be to do a plan for 18 months. you could game that system. that is not the intent, but you could put it on a short fuse. >> can i just say that is if you are thinking about the relationship to the law and city government, but individuals with disability, if you are out of compliance at any time, they can sue you. >> they ought to get in compliance sooner or later. >> commissioner riley? >> i think i support it, but i also want them to take a look at some of the issues, how to adds a business disruptions, and as the commissioner says,
to improve all buildings, not just small business. and to address the notification. i think it should be in multiple languages because of the diversity of the population of our city. >> there is a motion on the floor with those recommendations. >> do you want to repeat that, chris? >> when you talk about the plan, the plans are included. >> ok, good. >> commissioners, that would be a motion to approve with an allowance that they could have some type of implementation plan. is that for only lease renewals, or does that include new leases and lease renewals? >> it's both. because -- it's both.
>> we can approve it with the recommendation the legislation be revised to address those areas. >> that is what we are doing right now. >> multi--language. >> chris, do you want to read back the motion? >> ok, commissioners, that would be approve with allowances for an implementation plan period. notices should be multi-language, and did you include that it should apply to all buildings? >> yes. >> director, is that what you need from the motion? >> i just have some questions
around what we mean by implementation plan. i think we need to have a little more specificity on that . do you need an implementation plan to do what is readily achievable if it means just a door bell, a sign and a ramp? >> ok. so, that being said, can we include readily achievable in this motion or no? that is the question. that landlords are required on these triggers, new lease or renewal to bring their entrances up to the readily achievable standard. >> readily achievable can be having a plan to get up to ready achievable, correct? so it could be to take this many starts over a certain number of years, correct?
>> no. ready achievable is what can you do right now. with the certification plans and things that are not ready achievable, you make a plan to do them. >> so there is a plan already built in, can be? >> possibly, yes. i just think that we need more specificity around what you mean and what the intention of the plan is. >> and obviously we haven't included the net -- necessity. we haven't required that a commercial tenant provide a cast certification for their businesses. >> that is not in this legislation. it is a tool they can use to demonstrate that they have
gotten as readily achievable and compliant as they can, and in addition are addressing over time the other things. at some point it has to be a requirement like indoor plumbing was a requirement at some titan. it wasn't an option. >> i am wondering -- let me ask this question. so for an interest of a landlord to make their entrance or exit achievable beyond the readily achievable standard, which may require getting building permits and may require some disruption, are you thinking -- my question is, is that when a play may be in place because it is going to have a larger involvement? >> and then how does that work
with the federal law? what do they say? what if they walk in the door and say you are not in compliance? i don't recall that they have longer plans. >> well, i mean i think that this particular legislation isn't necessarily completely addressing the ongoing obligation. >> right. >> so it is saying at this snapshot of time, that you are making sure that your entrances and exits are readily achievable. and if you are sued, you are going to have to prove it. i think the idea that -- how can i say? we see within these two
lawsuits, the efforts that are being made by the readily achievable component are being recognized. >> so how would you articulate that in text? >> i'm just asking what the plan is, if it really means -- if the landlord's intention is they have an interest to go beyond the readily achievable and have to present the plan to the prospective tenant saying we may have to close the business for a day to deal with x, y and z. >> right. so we are talking about disclosure. like a landlord really has only obligation to make full disclosure to their tenant,
existing or a new one, of their obligation under the a.d.a. right, on both sides. >> i am confused now. >> i don't know why we would really even need to at that. at the time of the renewal or the new lease, they are required to show readily achievable. >> right. >> it is done. they have to make a plan anyway. >> right. >> so we can take the plan out, is that right? >> yes. >> all right. take the plan out. >> that is what the cast inspection is it. >> right. >> so was that a motion? >> it is, to support this legislation. >> i would like to second that. are so i have the motion then a motion to approve, notices should be multi-languages, and it should apply to all buildings? >> correct. >> yes. >> role call.
yes, yes, yes, no, yes, president adams. >> commissioners that motion passes 5-1. >> thank you. commissioner, item 9. discussion and possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors on board of supervisors file number 111077, police code security plans for commercial parking garages and lots. commissioners, in your binder is a list of questions that we compiled from the previous meeting. this was continued from the january 9 meeting. we also include the ordinance along with the legislative digest. this will be a presentation by
catherine rauschuber from david chiu's office. >> i won't repeat the longer presentation from last month but summarize quickly. basically the entertainment community sort of came to our office and supervisor wiener and the city attorney with the issue that a lot of the night-life related violence takes place in parking lots and gets blamed on the entertainment industry. so private parking facilities are generally not staffed late at night when the clubs let out. they can be poorly lit, and often they are sort of magnets for bad behavior. right now the police department permits all -- not city-owned -- but private parking facilities and requires renewal of the permits on an annual basis.
currently, applicants are not required to submit any information about their security plans or procedures. basically this legislation requires operators of parking lots and garages to provide security plans as part of their permit applications to the police department. we didn't say -- they could be sort of minimal. this is for all parking lots across the city and for all kinds of parking lot related violence, theft, muggings or whatever. but for those parking lots that are within 1,000 feet of a place of entertainment permit, the legislation says that certain minimum security requirements would apply. the two are providing detailed lighting plans to the police department that meet the existing fire code and the second is staffing the facility until 3:00 a.m. the police chief would have the discretion to add additional security measures if a parking lot had had multiple public
safety issues. you guys had a bunch of questions. the first and most important one being you wanted a map sort of looking at where all the place of entertainment permits are relative to where the permitted parking facilities are. despite herculean efforts, i was not able to get that from city staff. i'm sorry that i don't have the data for you, because i would love to have it. that being said, i will go down the list of the rest of the questions. there were four of the questions that sort of have to do with whether -- supervisor chiu, supervisor wiener and
others should change the legislation for more discretion from the police department. say the parking lot hadn't had any public safety issues. maybe the requirements for staffing could be lifted. there were always comments about whether it could be narrowed to certain toews of the week like thursday through sunday instead of the whole work. supervisor commue is very opening -- supervisor chiu is open to allowing that type of discussion with the police department. say a lot hadn't had any public safety issue for the past two years or some sort of standard like that. that was the answer to most of the questions. i could go through specific once if you have specific questions, but maybe i will leave it at that for now.
>> commissioner? >> the one thing -- i wasn't here for all this. was there any can -- any consideration that there could be remote visual monitoring. >> we talked about that, but i think like cameras would be good after the fact, after a crime has been committed. this is sort of to prevent the crimes from happening. >> and how about like panic buttons or something like that? some other divides -- device? we have fire alarms everywhere. >> that is something a parking lot could install. >> providing flexibility to use some technology. the biggest issue is whether you have to provide staff because we all know that is the more expensive thing to do, not to mention putting some people in jeopardy as well. >> when i first looked at this,
i don't know how much i like this. in the last month i have heard from the entertainment community, people who have venues up in norton beach, and nort beet they are in favor of it. if something happens in the private lots, they are the ones getting blamed for it. >> i get that. it is basically legislating a partnership between the venues and the place where people mark in order to -- park to get to those venues. some lots are very good about it, and there are some that aren't so very good about it. >> i think as long as we can give a certain level of discretion to the authorities that are best able to make the determinations, which is law
enforcement. >> i like that the areas where there are problems, that law enforcement can work with that. i'm ok with that. >> yes. >> if it is of interest to the commission, we worked with the police department and the entertainment commission on getting some police reports. there are some pretty shocking statements. there are three parking lots on broadway that we tried to pull the police reports for, and there is like attempted homicide. it is not exactly in the parking lot, but it is around there. it is a list of assaults, grand theft, attempted homicides and other things. >> director? >> katherine -- you reached out to city car and those entities,
and did you have feedback? >> we reached out, but we do not have feedback yet. we did have conversations with people. for the most part we think this would be beneficial for the companies because their property and customers are in these parking lots, and if it is a problematic parking lot, it is going to be much better off if there is staffing there. if a few lots decide to close instead of staying open until 3:00 a.m., it may be good for business anyway. that may be one way of looking at the city carshare issue. >> any other commissioner comments? let's open it up to general public comment. is there any public comment on this? >> members of the public, public comment will be limited to three minutes. if you could please state your name clearly, and you can line
up on the side wall. >> hi. good evening. my name is caroline. i am here on behalf of priority parking. the reason i'm here is that obviously priority parking and members of the parking association are very concerned about this proposed legislation. i understand the rationale behind it, but obviously they are concerned about the cost of operating the parking lots going up. and the possibility of some of these lots being shut down. i am assuming you guys are interested because obviously this may affect some of the small businesses that rely on these parking lots. for example, restaurants. i don't want to take up too much of your times, and i only have two minutes. i just want to go through the highlights of the concerns so you are aware of those. starting with the first one, the chief would have the discretion to disapprove the
plan. the chief of police would be able to promulgate rules that reach beyond the property. the chief of police would not be able to issue the commercial parking permit unless the chief first approves the security plan. even so, there is not an enumerated appeal mechanism in the legislation if the chief denies a security plan. i think this one is an item of big concern for the parking lot operators, and actually there is a representative here from the parking association, so i will let him elaborate on this. but the requirement to have staffing if the parking lot or garage is located within 1,000 feet of any entrance or exit to the entertainment establishment, requiring staffing under all hours of operation or until 3:00 a.m.
that is obviously a huge concern. for than would reason, entertainment establishment, i recommend you review the definition of that. it is extraordinarily broad. as the parking representative will articulate, this could effectively require the closing of most of the self-rohnert parking lots. i am glad to hear that supervisor chiu's office is willing to entertain the concept of a staff member on-site if warranted. i want to point out that the chief of police will be looking at the history of incidences over the past two years when he or she reviews the plan. so there will be an ongoing review of incidents over the past two years. thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening, my name is
ron. i am haven't of california parking. i am also secretary-treasurer of the parking association of san francisco. we have self objection toss this proposed ordinance. the chief being the staffing requirement. as was mentioned, entertainment establishment, and the reason they can't come up with a map, in san francisco, any place that has any kind of music -- i tried to figure it out and understand it, but from what i can gather, almost every parking lot in san francisco would have to fall under this requirement to have staffing until 3:00 a.m. staffing is extremely expensive for companies that are union like myself. our attendants cost upwards of $22 an hour plus benefits, which brings them up to almost
$35 an hour. i did a quick calculation, and to put on staffing on a lot where we don't require it now would cost over $100,000. we are faced with having to close them down. however, that presents another problem, because many of our parking lots, one of the reasons -- one of the great benefits of a parking lot versus a garage is people can come and go any time of the day or night. in a lot of locations we have mixed use, including residents, monthly parkers who can come and go any time of the day or night. if we are forced to close them down, people won't have the flexibility to be able to come and go. i see one of the nightclub operators in the room here. steve lee from the glass cat. we operate the lot across the
street from him, and we have worked to try to minimize the impact of the patrons of his establishment in our parking lot. we have gone to the extent of actually hiring 10 >> b police officers to parole and share the cost. but we couldn't afford to keep that program going. it is just not cost effective for us to have staffing even in the parking lots where it is busy, much less the locations that don't do any business from a nightclub or entertainment establishment. thank you very much. >> thank you. next. >> hello commissioners again. steven lee. immelman a board member of cmac , i am a nightclub owner, the
glass cat, the grand. all we are really asking here is not 10.b per se. we did trying that. when everybody is in the club, there are no problems. it is just at the end of the night at 2:00. i like the idea about the panic button thing, but you need somebody to push the button. we are only asking for one, because we are going out there to help get these people on their way. but then we don't have a representative of the parking lot to push this little button if we do have a major brawl out there or any kind of problems. again, just coming and going like he says, it is great. but people that have no interest in the clubs are coming and going in the lot as well. there is no fencing. they are driving in and out, and there is nobody representing the parking lot until our security guards come there at 2:00.
by that time there are already people camping out in the parking lot. in fact, now they are starting to set up hot dog stands in there. the cameras and all that because the police want that. we are just asking that there is some kind of controlled entry. one tenant even. our guards are there. i don't know about our venues, how much they are going to self staff, but our mandate is to get everybody home and not have issues. our problem is there is nobody representing the lot. they are already there to 12:00. they collect their money and pack up and leave. we are only talking about three more hours to have one extra guy. at least that the -- is the lot i deal with. the ones around city nights and the other lots around freeway and things, a lot of them are totally unattended, not collecting any money and wide
open. with that said, i just think it is a public safety issue. we are tired of policing it even though it is our job in a sense. we don't want any injuries with our patrons, and it is really a drag when somebody gets their car broken into. a lot of team we are kicking out people who are pretending to be attendants. they are collecting money from our customers. that is all i have to say. >> any other public comment? commissioners? commissioner o'brien? >> i wish you guys had shown up last month when we had this discussion. we definitely heard loud and clear language from the side that wanted to do something about a problem that seems we all agree exists today, which is the parking lots.
i do remember making the suggestion that cameras could be installed. one of the responses back was cameras just don't have an effect. they really don't work. i realized when i heard that that people that are breaking into convenience stores and what not don't pay any attention to the camera. they wave at the camera to say hello. we heard a lot of stuff. all the commissioners at the start were responding with another fee, and they are going to pay money. but by the time the end of night came, they began to feel that there is something in this, and there is some merit to what is going on. i can reintroduce you back up with a question. i would like to ask you to come back up for a question.